Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

I think you may have misread your link. It pretty clearly indicates that hate speech is protected: "However, under the First Amendment, individuals do have a right to speech that the listener disagrees with and to speech that is offensive and hateful." If it wasn't protected, members of the KKK, neo-Nazis, and the Westboro Baptist Church would be constantly in and out of jail or at least facing fines.* Regardless, simply drawing and posting a caricature of Mohammed is not hate speech. It's defiance of a tenet of one particular religion, generally done specifically to point out how ridiculous that tenet is. That's exactly the kind of expression that was intended to be protected by the First Amendment.

*That first part was in response to an implication with your title and post that seem to conflate hate speech and "fighting words." If that was not your intention, then feel free to ignore everything up to the asterisk.

It is quite clear that a civilized society doesn't have unrestricted freedom of speech as speech can have consequences, hence there are defamation laws, child protection laws, anti-violence/crime enticement laws, etc. It isn't hard to concieve that harmful social events could be limited, even if they are conducted by speech. Do the cartoons fall into that?

Short answer:If we are to go with equal standards with anti-Semitic cartoons being censored, then yes.

Long answers:I find the racist cartoon of the Prophet (PBUH) offensive, and I am not ashamed of that. However, I am not offended because they are "just cartoons" or because I am "insecure" about my faith; pretty much all prophets gets ridiculed, and I couldn't careless about what that racist guy living far away thinks. I am offended because the images are indirectly harmful just like "Homeland", or "American Sniper".These images are challenged because it is recognized that they play a significant role in perpetuating and encouraging the demonization of Muslims and Islam, racist laws, policies, and surveillance programs, drone strikes, wars, hate crime, workplace discrimination, apathy and victim blaming toward Muslims murdered by individuals and nations. I believe the only way to side with the opposing view is by attempting to decontextualize and depoliticize these racist cartoons as if they don't serve as propaganda in order to fuel Islamophobia, state racism, police brutality, and imperialism. I am not sure what one would find appealing or healthy in this type of society.

The narrative going around is that the cartoons are "satire" and that Muslims should learn how to take a Joke (which is an other attempt to imply that Muslims are "uncivilized" and "backwards"). However, Muslims like everyone else know what jokes are, and are able to tell them (gasp)! Unfortunately, the cartoons are not "satire", but rather they are racist propaganda; racism is not a "joke". Would it be acceptable if the Klan started publishing racist minstrel shows and blackface cartoons? A Neo-Nazi group starts distributing propaganda films and cartoons dehumanizing Jews (Which isn't going to fly) and proclaim it as an achievement of free speech? If so, then was it acceptable for Nazi Germany to produce anti-Semitic cartoons and films as propaganda to dehumanize Jews (We know how that ended up)?

There is this pseudo-intellectual argument that "Islamis not a race!". OMG...! A-Are you saying that I have been a Muslim all this time and I didn't know that Islam was a religion? *faints* (look at what you did captain obvious!)Seriously though, Islam is open to people of all racial backgrounds, the issue isn't that Islam is a race, but rather that Islam is being racialized. Which means that Muslims are cast as a threatening racial other, where racial characteristics and attitudes are assigned, for ease of demonization and dehumanization in an extremely racial manner. Hence why there are such things as a Sikh of Indian origins or a Christian from Arab origins being targeted in islamophobia attacks, even though the diversity among Muslims is large.

Fighting Words:"Words which would likely make the person whom they are addressed commit an act of violence. Fighting words are a category of speech that is unprotected by the First Amendment. Chaplinsky v New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)."

How can we not see the charicature of Mohammad as fighting words. Reguarding the recent attack in Texas, the convention host spent thousands of dollars on contracting a security force.

I certainly don't condone the attack, but I also don't condone the charicatires as they incite violence. They are mean and hurtful and completely unessisary. I am not a follower of Islam, but one does not have to be to see this truth.

I have heard that they draw Mohammad because they've been told they can't. I reject that. Do they draw everything they have been told not to draw? It seems to me that mostly these instances concern antireligious hate speech. This should not be allow to guise as free speech.

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

Seeing as how people do it simply because they know Muslims hate it, yes. The act of drawing Muhammad is (usually) done with the intent to insult the Muslim faith, and by default, Muslims.

Another issue here is if someone asked me if he should print a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in his newspaper, I would say don't do it.I wouldn't be saying this because the cartoon wasn't funny, I would say this because I think it would make it more likely that some wacky Iraqi would get pissed off and think he had an excuse to kill somebody.Does this mean the terrorists have won?

At 5/4/2015 10:06:54 PM, xus00HAY wrote:Another issue here is if someone asked me if he should print a cartoon of the Prophet Mohammed in his newspaper, I would say don't do it.I wouldn't be saying this because the cartoon wasn't funny, I would say this because I think it would make it more likely that some wacky Iraqi would get pissed off and think he had an excuse to kill somebody.Does this mean the terrorists have won?

If we use the fight against terrorism as an excuse to publish and promote religious intolerance, then we have already lost.

No, The Concept of terrorism is if you do terrible things, people will be afraid of you, so you will have some control of their behavior.A few years ago, I would think that if some religious leaders in some mid-eastern countries created a law that certain pictures were illegal therefore nobody in the world could draw them, I would think that people in their part of the world could not prohibit freedom of expression in everybody else's parts of the world. I am not so sure of that now.Is that winning some kind of authority or respect?

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

First off, hate speech is %100 protected by the 1st amendment.

Secondly, doing something that a group of people hates is far different from doing something because you hate a group of people. I seriously doubt these people hate Muslims. What they hate are American values being held hostage by a small, violent and deranged sect of one religion and they are bravely taking a stand against that. Not quite the monsters you and others hope the paint them as.

During the 6 day war in 1967, one Sunday afternoon the Israeli air force pilots were ordered to go to the beach and party, but not get too drunk. The Egyptian spies saw this and reported that the Jews did not seem like they were ready for war.The Israeli Air Force had learned this trick were you fly a jet a few feet above the ground, and the Egyptian radar will not detect your presence. there are parts of the Egyptian desert that are completely flat, and there are no trees, so there is nothing to crash into. ,yes, you can fly under the radar at full throttle, even with a full load of bombs.So, Monday morning the Egyptian Air Force flew their usual dawn patrol, landed , and went to breakfast. Israeli intelligence knew exactly were they were at this time. The Egyptians monitoring the radar did not know where the Israeli jets were though, well, not until they heard the bombs.So, the Egyptian pilots went outside to see what was going on, they smelled jet fuel, and saw smoke, and lots of debris, but they could not see their airplanes.Suffice it to say ,this set a new record for the ultimate Blue Monday. as I recall the group called the Mamas and the Papas had a hit record back then called "Monday . Monday" ( something about"you gave me no warning" )Anyway the Egyptians saw that the war was lost before they knew it began.During the next week Israel set a new world record for most land captured in the smallest amount of time.Some joker put an advertisement in the classifieds "Surplus Egyptian Army rifles never fired only dropped once"The press secretary of Egypt asked the Air Force what information they could release. The General's answer was.........well......ANYTHING, but the truth.........how 'bout an armada of USAF aircraft that had SIX pointed stars painted on them and completely disguised as the Jew's airplanes overwhelmed our guys.Thus began the legend of the Infidel from America and the formation of the Colony they called Israel.

BTW Israel did have a bunch of reasons why they had to do this.

,so The USA has now become the target of every Jihadi Joe who wants to die fighting.

Sure, there may be some inaccuracies above, but this is actually not just something I thought up when I was stoned

I would have to say no. You are correct in that the 1st amendment doesn't have, for instance, a "hate speech" clause. However, if you read Chaplinski v. New Hampshire you'll see that it was determined by the Supreme Court that:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Secondly, doing something that a group of people hates is far different from doing something because you hate a group of people. I seriously doubt these people hate Muslims.

So you mean to say that you believe that there are no malicious intentions in malicious actions? Do the intentions matter?

What they hate are American values being held hostage by a small, violent and deranged sect of one religion and they are bravely taking a stand against that. Not quite the monsters you and others hope the paint them as.

Could you elaborate on what American values they protect? Even if hate speech was protected, do you infer that protecting hate speech is protecting American values? How is the request not to draw a caricature holding anything hostage?

It's interesting the feverish ferver that so many have, to protect hate speech and malicious intentions while feigning an honorable cause. Only then to shun or hold their lips tight when anyone else is crusified for hate speech. Where were you when they took Donald Sterling's basketball team from him, fining him millions and banning him from the NBA for life for fairly mundane racist comments made in private, illegal sound recordings?

I would have to say no. You are correct in that the 1st amendment doesn't have, for instance, a "hate speech" clause. However, if you read Chaplinski v. New Hampshire you'll see that it was determined by the Supreme Court that:

"There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace."

Then I would have to say you have an astounding ability to ignore plainly obvious fact. Ever heard of the KKK?And your NH ruling is totally and completely irrelevant. The examples used in this case are someone specifically addressing another person with a commonly offensive term. No one was being specifically addressed by a picture drawing event. Nor could walking down the street with a Muhammad shirt be reasonably assumed to incite a particular individual to any violent recourse.

Secondly, doing something that a group of people hates is far different from doing something because you hate a group of people. I seriously doubt these people hate Muslims.

So you mean to say that you believe that there are no malicious intentions in malicious actions? Do the intentions matter?

I meant to say exactly what I said, please don't put words in my mouth. Drawing a picture for a contest is not malicious. A picture cannot be held to represent threatening evil by any logical person! The intent and actions were benign, the response was fanatical.

What they hate are American values being held hostage by a small, violent and deranged sect of one religion and they are bravely taking a stand against that. Not quite the monsters you and others hope the paint them as.

Could you elaborate on what American values they protect?

How about freely expressing yourself without fear of death? Wouldn't it be great if Americans could hold events like this, or make jokes on TV without paying thousands for extra security after the fact?

Even if hate speech was protected, do you infer that protecting hate speech is protecting American values?

Hate speech is 100% protected, without equivocation. I can talk about hating Jews, Christians and Muslims until I'm blue in the face. I can burn crosses, mutilate likenesses of baby Jesus and piss on the Koran and then put it in a magazine and sell it if I wanted. You are flat out wrong, get over yourself. And yes, protecting offensive speech is fundamental to protecting American Values!

How is the request not to draw a caricature holding anything hostage?

Its not a request, its a threat of death for non compliance. If it was simply a request it should be able to be ignored just as easily as a religious request from a Christian or Jew.

It's interesting the feverish ferver that so many have, to protect hate speech and malicious intentions while feigning an honorable cause.

It's pathetic and disheartening to watch people giving tacit support to the reprehensible actions of religious fanatics whilst feigning there disgust at the "malice" of picture drawing.

Only then to shun or hold their lips tight when anyone else is crusified for hate speech. Where were you when they took Donald Sterling's basketball team from him, fining him millions and banning him from the NBA for life for fairly mundane racist comments made in private, illegal sound recordings?

The NBA is NOT the government. You are equating apples to oranges. You are also barking up the wrong tree entirely. Moreover, the NBA could not have gotten away with half of what they did without the agreement of his wife, who happened to own exactly half of everything involved. Yet another fail......

Freedom of speech does not mean you can yell fire in a crowded theater.If you do this, irrational people might think there is a fire and run towards the exits. When they do this ,other people will believe they have something to be running from and start running too. If someone who gets trampled sues you, can you say they can't blame you because you thought you had freedom of speech?

Then I would have to say you have an astounding ability to ignore plainly obvious fact. Ever heard of the KKK?And your NH ruling is totally and completely irrelevant. The examples used in this case are someone specifically addressing another person with a commonly offensive term. No one was being specifically addressed by a picture drawing event. Nor could walking down the street with a Muhammad shirt be reasonably assumed to incite a particular individual to any violent recourse.

Please don't be an ignoramus. Jyllands-Posten, Charlie Hebdo, Curtis Culwell Center... The later spent tens of thousands on special security. Only the ignorant or naive would not consider these, and many other events, as evidence that these images incite violence.

I meant to say exactly what I said, please don't put words in my mouth. Drawing a picture for a contest is not malicious. A picture cannot be held to represent threatening evil by any logical person! The intent and actions were benign, the response was fanatical.

Honestly, I can't say that I understand why drawing Mohammed offends certain followers of Islam. However, your or my understanding is not a prerequisite of a certain action being logical. Again, saying that the intent was benign is both ignorant and naieve. The intent is to offend. It shouldn't be difficult to see that, if you look at the images portrayed by Charlie Hebdo. Let's not be naive, in many cases Mohammad is not just depicted but depicted in a very disrespectful manner.

Hate speech is 100% protected, without equivocation. I can talk about hating Jews, Christians and Muslims until I'm blue in the face. I can burn crosses, mutilate likenesses of baby Jesus and piss on the Koran and then put it in a magazine and sell it if I wanted. You are flat out wrong, get over yourself. And yes, protecting offensive speech is fundamental to protecting American Values!

I've noticed that all your examples are religious in nature. It seems like you are extremely intolerant of religious beliefs in general. This supports my notion that the "right" that is under attack here is not really free speech, but instead the freedom to offend the religious specifically and with burning hatred.

I've already provided one example, that you are attempting to ignore. However, if you think that burning a cross is not illegal, check out Virginia v. Black.

Offensive speech is fundamental to protecting American values? I've already shown a few examples where offensive speech is punishable in America.

It's pathetic and disheartening to watch people giving tacit support to the reprehensible actions of religious fanatics whilst feigning there disgust at the "malice" of picture drawing.

Now look who's putting words in who's mouth. I have and will not in any way support the acts of terrorism issued against the cartoonists that depict Mohammed. The violence that they commit is far, far, far more reprehensible than even the worst cariacture of Mohammed. However, prenteding as you do, that one horrific and reprehensible action in any way condones the offensive speech of those that wish to spew hateful excrement and protend that it smells like roses is ignorant.

The NBA is NOT the government. You are equating apples to oranges. You are also barking up the wrong tree entirely. Moreover, the NBA could not have gotten away with half of what they did without the agreement of his wife, who happened to own exactly half of everything involved. Yet another fail......

I'm not sure what you are insinuating. Where was the first amendment protection for Donald Sterling?

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

If a person is offended by the speech of others, how should the offended respond? Is violence from an individual or third party justified, since the speech was offensive?

Then I would have to say you have an astounding ability to ignore plainly obvious fact. Ever heard of the KKK?And your NH ruling is totally and completely irrelevant. The examples used in this case are someone specifically addressing another person with a commonly offensive term. No one was being specifically addressed by a picture drawing event. Nor could walking down the street with a Muhammad shirt be reasonably assumed to incite a particular individual to any violent recourse.

Please don't be an ignoramus. Jyllands-Posten, Charlie Hebdo, Curtis Culwell Center... The later spent tens of thousands on special security. Only the ignorant or naive would not consider these, and many other events, as evidence that these images incite violence.

didn't say caricatures couldn't be assumed to spark violence. Again, your asinine example only covers instances of direct confrontation with common insults. Holding an event or wearing a shirt in general is not a direct threat to or in confrontation with anyone. If this ruling used the same ignorant interpretations as you then innocently doing something that might cause offense to another could be held as a violation of law. That isn't, and never has been the case. You are obviously and completely WRONG! You fail, again. Also, good job dodging that bit about the KKK which obviously turns your whole point upside down on itself.

I meant to say exactly what I said, please don't put words in my mouth. Drawing a picture for a contest is not malicious. A picture cannot be held to represent threatening evil by any logical person! The intent and actions were benign, the response was fanatical.

Honestly, I can't say that I understand why drawing Mohammed offends certain followers of Islam. However, your or my understanding is not a prerequisite of a certain action being logical. Again, saying that the intent was benign is both ignorant and naieve. The intent is to offend. It shouldn't be difficult to see that, if you look at the images portrayed by Charlie Hebdo. Let's not be naive, in many cases Mohammad is not just depicted but depicted in a very disrespectful manner.

The intent is to satire for the sake of humor or to simply stand up against intolerance. None of these things are uncommon or warrant death threats.

Hate speech is 100% protected, without equivocation. I can talk about hating Jews, Christians and Muslims until I'm blue in the face. I can burn crosses, mutilate likenesses of baby Jesus and piss on the Koran and then put it in a magazine and sell it if I wanted. You are flat out wrong, get over yourself. And yes, protecting offensive speech is fundamental to protecting American Values!

I've noticed that all your examples are religious in nature. It seems like you are extremely intolerant of religious beliefs in general. This supports my notion that the "right" that is under attack here is not really free speech, but instead the freedom to offend the religious specifically and with burning hatred.

Ok allow me add a new category of things I "could" hate....."idiots on the Internet who commonly resort to making baseless assumptions in failed attempts to prove their moronic beliefs"There, is that better? The examples were religious to match the discussion. My parents are devout Christians and I love and respect them immensely (amongst many others). This is yet another huge fail by you.

I've already provided one example, that you are attempting to ignore. However, if you think that burning a cross is not illegal, check out Virginia v. Black.

Lol, talk about ignorant. Read this line regarding Va v Black and then go ahead and apologize....."Ultimately, the Virginia Supreme Court held, among other things, that the cross-burning statute is unconstitutional on its face" FAIL!

Offensive speech is fundamental to protecting American values? I've already shown a few examples where offensive speech is punishable in America.

And I've specifically shown you why your examples are total crap. I say for 3rd time, offensive language and expressions are 100% protected. Please explain how the KKK can legally operate if your assertions are true.

It's pathetic and disheartening to watch people giving tacit support to the reprehensible actions of religious fanatics whilst feigning there disgust at the "malice" of picture drawing.

Now look who's putting words in who's mouth. I have and will not in any way support the acts of terrorism issued against the cartoonists that depict Mohammed. The violence that they commit is far, far, far more reprehensible than even the worst cariacture of Mohammed. However, prenteding as you do, that one horrific and reprehensible action in any way condones the offensive speech of those that wish to spew hateful excrement and protend that it smells like roses is ignorant.

To say that people should not express themselves (which is exactly what these monsters are after) in a manner that offends a fanatical Muslim is tacit support for fanatical Muslims (and their actions). To say people can't joke about something to avoid hurting the feelings of others is absurd. There is nothing malicious about a picture drawing contest unless you are a pyscho that thinks everyone is out to offend you.

The NBA is NOT the government. You are equating apples to oranges. You are also barking up the wrong tree entirely. Moreover, the NBA could not have gotten away with half of what they did without the agreement of his wife, who happened to own exactly half of everything involved. Yet another fail......

I'm not sure what you are insinuating. Where was the first amendment protection for Donald Sterling?

Sterling didn't need his 1st amendment rights protected because there was no law or government ruling attempting to abridge those freedoms. If you don't understand this very simple concept, I can see why you have so much trouble with how 1st amendment rights work.

I've already provided one example, that you are attempting to ignore. However, if you think that burning a cross is not illegal, check out Virginia v. Black.

I would like to dive a little further into this example because in addition to contradicting your belief that cross burning is illegal, it also very succinctly debunks the entire premise of your beliefs in this thread as well.

The Supreme Court justices (the final authority) in a plurality opinion regarding this case delivered a particularly damning review to your point of view. Essentially they ruled that while burning a cross (or drawing a caricature of Mohammed) with the direct intention of intimidating someone can potentially be considered illegal, the physical act itself CANNOT be taken as evidence of intimidation or held as illegal. Therefore the example you've sited has positively concluded that drawing a caricature of Mohammed is not, in any way, shape or form, evidence of intimidation.

I assume you failed to post any references to Va v Black in the hope that I would not review. Sorry, no dice.

"Now look who's putting words in who's mouth. I have and will not in any way support the acts of terrorism issued against the cartoonists that depict Mohammed. "

OK then, please answer this question, its multiple choiceKilling cartoonists is,A) Completely unjustifiedB) An act of war if the killer believes that he is a soldier fighting in a war to defend Islam against foreign infidel who seek to convince the faithful that their religion is derived from the auditory hallucinations of a shaman.C) Something we Christians must not allow this to change our minds about anything, for if we do, it is not unlike telling terrorists that what they do can make a difference, therefore if they kill enough people they can change our behavior.

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

I think you've been enlightened by edward - at least to an extent, considering your adamant defense of your own position.

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

I think you've been enlightened by edward - at least to an extent, considering your adamant defense of your own position.

I'm not really sure where the disconnect is. My guess is that you just don't want to see the truth. Lucky for you, I have the patience of a nun.

"A state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate." "A State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm." -Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, majority opinion in Virginia v. Black

... and as far as the bar association:

"In this country there is no right to speak fighting words those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently."

I feel like this is somewhat of a tangent. Whether or not hate speech is protected, is irrelevant. This post was created to debate whether drawing Mohammed is hate speech. Your arguments seem to support that it is, and you just don't care that the speech is offensive and hurtful. This is how I feel, and this feeling in no way condones the violence that the caricatures have been met with. However, using the violence as a justification for hate speech is problematic. For one, the violence was brought about by the speech. Secondly, you are ignoring the millions that don't resort to violence but are still extremely offended. Of course, you couldnt care less about them. As you said, "I can talk about hating Jews, Christians and Muslims until I'm blue in the face. I can burn crosses, mutilate likenesses of baby Jesus and piss on the Koran and then put it in a magazine and sell it if I wanted." "If it was simply a request it should be able to be ignored just as easily as a religious request from a Christian or Jew."

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

I think you've been enlightened by edward - at least to an extent, considering your adamant defense of your own position.

I'm not really sure where the disconnect is. My guess is that you just don't want to see the truth. Lucky for you, I have the patience of a nun.

You know exactly where the disconnect is. Your multiple attempts to dodge clearly stated contradictions to your POV make that obvious. You won't explain the KKK, you ignore the facts of your own sources, and now your responding to another person whilst quoting my personal statements. You either can't, or refuse to comprehend the entire discussion and now you don't even know who your talking to.

"A state, consistent with the First Amendment, may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate." "A State may choose to prohibit only those forms of intimidation that are most likely to inspire fear of bodily harm." -Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, majority opinion in Virginia v. Black

Right, I already said that when I specifically covered that this very same ruling CLEARLY notes that cross burning (ie "caricature drawing") is completely legal and CANNOT be held as sole evidence of intimidation. I also cited sources. You refused to comment on all of this because it clearly shows you are wrong.

... and as far as the bar association:

"In this country there is no right to speak fighting words those words without social value, directed to a specific individual, that would provoke a reasonable member of the group about whom the words are spoken. For example, a person cannot utter a racial or ethnic epithet to another if those words are likely to cause the listener to react violently."

Keys phrases in this statement that reiterate the points I have made twice now.....1) "Words without social value" - Satire has obvious social value2) "Directed to a specific individual" - No individuals were addressed3) "provoke a reasonable member" -the words "Islamic extremist" and "reasonable" do not equate on any level (unless you are a cowardly apologist for their barbaric behavior)

I feel like this is somewhat of a tangent. Whether or not hate speech is protected, is irrelevant.

LOL, this is more clear evidence of your refusal to address the glaring contradictions in your sources. The so called "irrelevant tangent" came from you in your very first post equating caricatures to hate speech and then saying it wasn't constitutionally protected. You're calling this a tangent discussion now because you've realized how totally untenable your position is and you are too smug and cowardly to admit when you're clearly WRONG!

This post was created to debate whether drawing Mohammed is hate speech. Your arguments seem to support that it is, and you just don't care that the speech is offensive and hurtful.

This is more clear evidence that you have zero ability to account for the numerous contradictions I have cited. Nothing I have said could be even remotely construed to support the idea that drawing Mohammed is hate speech. Nor could any if the evidence I've provided (and you've hidden from) lead anyone to that conclusion.

This is how I feel, and this feeling in no way condones the violence that the caricatures have been met with.

It supports the underlying reason for said violence, which is to prevent Americans from exercising free speech that Muslim extremists have deemed off limits. In this way, you are just as bad as the guy pulling the trigger, but hey, "this is how I feel".

However, using the violence as a justification for hate speech is problematic.

No, its actually a pretty reasonable response, particularly from victims. However, that's not what was happening at any of these events. You can say it over and over while avoiding all the facts, but it doesn't change anything.

For one, the violence was brought about by the speech.

Wrong. Satire does not promote violence, extremists do. By your logic, it would be my fault if you took offense to our conversation and exacted violence on me for it. You are so obviously wrong that it's starting to get funny.

Secondly, you are ignoring the millions that don't resort to violence but are still extremely offended. Of course, you couldnt care less about them.

First correct thing you've said in this entire post! I don't care about the millions of Christians that are offended by blasphemous depictions of Jesus on "The Family Guy" either. You know why? Because I'm not a cry baby that runs around worrying who is offended by what someone else says. Because I'm not overbearing enough to deprive the other millions of people of perfectly good hearted humor that someone else might get their feelings hurt over. And lastly, because I would NEVER want to live in a world where everything that was said was unoffensive to everyone it was said to.

As you said, "I can talk about hating Jews, Christians and Muslims until I'm blue in the face. I can burn crosses, mutilate likenesses of baby Jesus and piss on the Koran and then put it in a magazine and sell it if I wanted." "If it was simply a request it should be able to be ignored just as easily as a religious request from a Christian or Jew."

And more evidence of your obvious and total lack of intellectual response. Good job pairing two of my quotes from separate lines of discussion.Your attempt to paint me as a religious bigot are pathetically amateur. It is painfully obvious that you think you are writing for some kind of audience rather than having an actual discussion. If you want to keep playing the dodge game then you are obviously not worth my time. Address the glaring contradictions I have repeatedly pointed out or continue feigning interest in "enlightenment" with someone else.

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

You are wrong on one word,"offends." No where in the constitution does it say that we have the right to not be offended.

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

No. There is literally zero chance that any court (not even the 9th circuit) would hold that merely drawing Mohammed was hate speech.

At 5/3/2015 11:33:02 PM, ZenoCitium wrote:"Hate speech is speech that offends, threatens, or insults groups, based on race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, disability, or other traits."

Is a caricature of Mohammed not the same as "fighting words", and as such not protected by the First Amendment? I was wondering if there is someone that could enlighten me on the subject. Thank you in advance.

No. There is literally zero chance that any court (not even the 9th circuit) would hold that merely drawing Mohammed was hate speech.

If they did, wouldn't they have to view drawing any of Islam's prophets as 'hate speech', since Muslims don't believe any prophet (Abraham, Moses, Jesus, etc.) can be drawn?